US shot itself in the foot in Sudan

An SPLA soldier walks away from a vehicle in Juba December 21, 2013. African mediators sought on Saturday to meet rivals to South Sudan's president in a bid to end fighting that threatens to drag the world's newest country into an ethnic civil war.(Reuters / Goran Tomasevic) / Reuters

Washington was more interested in weakening the Republic in Sudan and encouraged the Republic of South Sudan to break away, but the looming civil war will damage US interests in the region, Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of Pan-African news wire, told RT.

RT:A small contingency of US troops are
already in Sudan and marines are on stand-by, is a larger
American military involvement possible?

Abayomi Azikiwe: It could very well lead to a
larger US and UN presence in the Republic of South Sudan. It’s a
very volatile situation, we are right now analyzing reports about
the possibility of the discovery of two mass graves, one in the
capital Juba and the other in Bor, in the capital of Jonglei
state, there also has been fighting in Unity state which are all
the producing area. The US has a lot invested politically in the
Republic of South Sudan and they were the main forces behind
encouraging the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement to break away
from the Republic of Sudan in the north of the country.
Therefore, they have a lot to say about developments that are
going on right now in this troubled nation.

RT:Washington was one of the main champions
of South Sudan's secession. Could it have foreseen these problems
that it faced just a couple of years around?

AA: I think they were more interested in
weakening the Republic of Sudan. Prior to the partition Sudan was
the largest geographic nation-state in Africa, it was also an
emerging oil-producing state, it was producing over 500,000 oil
barrels per day. 80 per cent of the oil concessions with the
Republic of Sudan in Khartoum were held by the People’s Republic
of China, who state-owned oil farms there. So it was a concerted
move on the part of US to weaken the government in Khartoum and
also to lessen the influence of the People’s Republic of China in
Sudan.

RT:When it was one country Sudan was under
American sanctions, so US oil giants couldn't do business there.
Has this changed?

AA: Yes, in the south the US is trying to
develop mechanisms for exploring the oil. The problem is the US
doesn’t have a lot of resources to invest in the oil industry
inside the country. President Salva Kiir of the Republic of South
Sudan went to China several months ago to try to get them to
assist in a building of a pipeline where they could circumvent
the flow of oil from the south into the north. However, the
Chinese refused to finance such a project, although they did
pledge to provide some aid. It’s a very difficult situation as
far as the US is concerned because the country deteriorates into
a civil war between the followers of Riek Machar, the ousted Vice
President, and President Salva Kiir. This of course will damage
US interest in region, and it can also spread to other countries
throughout Central and East Africa.

RT:How big is American oil companies’
presence in South Sudan?

AA: In the past during the period of the civil
war in early 1980s Chevron oil had interest there. There is a
tremendous amount of potential in terms of the extraction of
petroleum resources from South Sudan. But the problem they have
is that the oil has to flow to the north, and that’s in fact has
been a source for a lot of problems between Khartoum and Juba
because they have to agree on the terms of under which this oil
is extracted, the fees related to it and also the export of the
oil from the south into the north and out of the country to other
areas, which are the customers of the Sudanese oil. Both nations
have suffered tremendously as a result of the partition and
ongoing instability. Oil production now, even in the north, is
down to less than 200,000 barrels per day. So the partition has
actually crippled the economies of both the North as well as
South Sudan.

RT:Is it possible to prevent the possible
civil war? Is the international help needed?

AA: I think they can pull back from a full-blown
civil war, but it is going to take an intervention of the African
Union, as well as other regional organizations, particularly the
intergovernmental Authority on Development, which is the East
African organization composed of several states.

They have to sit down with both Riek Machar and Salva Kiir to try
to resolve this conflict. We have to also keep in mind that
fighting has been going on over the last two years even within
the South Sudan itself. There is a dissident group called the
South Sudanese Liberation Army which recently reached an
agreement with government in Juba to lay down their arms. They
are very well organized and armed forces, there are other rebel
and dissident groups that have been operating in various areas of
South Sudan. It is a vast country and there is still no
uniformity politically inside South Sudan itself. So it’s going
to take international intervention, but intervention in order to
negotiate a viable settlement between the various fractions
inside of the Republic of South Sudan.

RT:Do you think the situation in the
country could be stabilized? And how it would develop in case of
US military intervention?

AA: I think it can be stabilized. The problem is
South Sudan is a young country, they have very limited
infrastructure, they are really not a viable state in regard to
its facilities, its capacity of providing services to people. I
think it was an extreme tragedy that Sudan was broken up. It
would have possibly been better to have South Sudan as an
autonomous region, as a part of a broader Republic of Sudan. But
the US as well as Israel encouraged the Republic of South Sudan
to break away, thinking that they would be able to provide
assistance to the government in Juba, but US isn’t in a position
this time to provide any substantial economic assistance to the
Republic of South Sudan.

At the same time they have a burdening military presence on the
African continent. So their first choice would be some type of
limited military intervention in Republic of South Sudan, but the
problem is this could fuel tensions to even a higher degree, and
if this happens then US can be in fact bogged down into a
quagmire in the Republic of South Sudan. And they are not going
to have any support from the government in Khartoum under
President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who now is facing possible
charges before the International Criminal Court. And the
sanctions imposed by the US against the Republic of South Sudan
and the economy in the Republic of Sudan in the north - they are
also in a very dire state. It’s a very complex situation, but the
US has to be very careful because if they enter on a broader
level, they could be very well bogged down in a guerilla, in a
civil war and lose a substantial amount of troops as well of
military equipment in the fighting.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.